Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Leftists come here
Jerry | 
Russia F1Z1K_love_AdreN 
Stalin or Trotsky? And why? Imo both were good, and I can't decide for myself who was better
2020-10-01 16:49
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
#1
 | 
Germany NotJuan
Lenin
2020-10-01 16:50
No doubt he was a genius, but I'm talking about Stalin and Trotsky right now
2020-10-01 16:50
#2
 | 
Italy davvasti
Lula
2020-10-01 16:50
#10
Xeppaa | 
Egypt w7tv
+1
2020-10-01 16:53
+1
2020-10-01 19:22
Joe Biden
2020-10-01 16:50
#76
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
He is not even leftist.
2020-10-01 18:08
You're not even a leftist
2020-10-02 00:33
my left hand
2020-10-01 16:51
mussolini
2020-10-01 16:51
Wtf
2020-10-01 16:51
#73
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
as an italian, i'm offended.
2020-10-01 18:03
+1
2020-10-01 18:17
bo jiden
2020-10-01 16:52
+1 cool guy
2020-10-01 16:58
#9
 | 
Russia Drapery
Is there a difference?
2020-10-01 16:52
Yes, lol There are stalinists and trotskyists
2020-10-01 16:55
#28
 | 
Russia Drapery
Trotsky was a stalinist till he got kicked from the country, so it doesn't really matter
2020-10-01 16:58
He didn't believe you could build socialism in one country
2020-10-01 17:02
#11
 | 
North America 007DBR9
you mean communits lmao trosky is more chad
2020-10-01 16:53
Yes, the term "communists" is more precise in this case because today's "leftists" are just a shame for what Marx, Engels and Lenin really meant
2020-10-01 16:55
#19
 | 
North America 007DBR9
"Leftits (noun): a person with left-wing political views."
2020-10-01 16:56
I meant those who call themselves leftists (majority of them)
2020-10-01 16:56
left-wing = communism
2020-10-01 16:59
who says that
2020-10-01 17:06
#48
 | 
Czech Republic forseti12
Bullshit, communism is a totalism, I don't think that's what majority of people with left-wing political views want. left-wing = socialism*
2020-10-01 17:24
#78
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
Stalinism was a totalitarism. Communism existed without him and it's theoretically the best system ever created by mankind if u consider it the evolved form of socialism.
2020-10-01 18:09
#104
 | 
Russia Drapery
Learn what left and right in politics mean
2020-10-01 18:35
2020-10-01 16:59
That's really accurate, good job. It's sad majority of people don't understand that leftists =/= liberals
2020-10-01 17:01
"both were good" this has to be a bait
2020-10-01 16:53
Explain?
2020-10-01 16:56
You should learn history before typing nonsense here, my child.
2020-10-01 16:57
I have learnt history before typing what you call "nonsense". Now you can just fuck off with that "my child"
2020-10-01 16:58
Then you wouldn't call them good leaders because this is just false. You don't even need to know history, the horrible things that they have done, how many people they killed for nothing.... Oh my child if only you knew....
2020-10-01 17:20
Keep listening to Solzhenitsyn and other liberal propaganda instead of learning the real numbers. Seems to be useless to talk to you.
2020-10-01 17:26
communist spotted
2020-10-01 17:31
Yeah I talked to him the other day Luckily this is a bait
2020-10-04 23:21
Hello, I'm a leftist, and none of them actually.
2020-10-01 16:54
Who then? Lenin? Marx? Engels?
2020-10-01 16:56
Marx & Engels explanation of the society are right. Their proposed solutions however (aka communism) are wrong. Lenin is already better than Stalin or Trotsky but still bad.
2020-10-01 16:58
im curious: if not communism (and obv im not talking about real socialism autocratic elite lead systems), what else in your opinion as a leftist? anarchism?
2020-10-01 17:24
Regulated capitalism?
2020-10-01 17:31
sry didnt want to sound so contemptuous i dont get how this works tho. capitalism itself is the very idea of not getting regulated in areas where you want to regulate it probably. rivalry is in its nature and it doesnt work without exploitation of the workers. and if ppl are paid well here, that means that there must be a deficit elsewhere.
2020-10-01 17:44
Not at all, you are messing up economy and politics I believe. Also, yes rivalry is in nature, but not in human nature : we are social animals. If we are where we are today, it is not because we are the strongest animal out there, we are not the fastest, the more resistant, we are weak animals compared to others. If we are here today, it is because we collaborate together way more than others. Capitalism is about owning a company (a mean of production) with money instead of work force you provide to it It has nothing to do with liberalism which is about the less regulation as possible (free market). Today yes, both can be mixed up as in a globalized world, less regulation mean more competition between the labor forces, the corporate taxes, etc.. and so owners in a capitalistic system are getting wealthier the more liberalism there is (until there is a crisis ofc). A regulated capitalism could result in many legislation : - to limit the dividend to a certain amount of the benefits. Meaning you can't get dividends if the companie loses money. - to limit the dividend to a certain ratio with the bonus given to the companie workers. For exemple, limit the amount of dividend to never be more than the bonus given or the money invested in the company R&D. - to limit the maximum salary spread within a company, for exemple, the best wage couldn't exceed 20 time the lowest one. - etc... That's some of possible regulation of capitalism. Yes if you redistribute some wealth to the workers, then some else will lose it (even if it is not a 0 sum game, some will yet still lose some of it). But look at Amazon for exemple. The CEO is now valued up to 200 billions dollars. Even 1 billion dollar is too much for one person to spend it all. So if part of these 200 billions, lets say 75% would be redirected to his employes, then he would still have 50 billions. And Amazon employe, would be credited with $230000 each single of them. But even better, as Mr Bezos can't spend its value because it is too much, it is reinjected in financial speculation : aka creating no jobs but value only. Meanwhile thos employe you just gave 200k+ will spend a part of it in direct consumption, creating jobs and value as well.
2020-10-01 18:06
no i dont. at least i tend to say i understand the problem quite well since im reading about that kinda stuff for more than 20 years now; not exclusively from a radical leftist position despite that being the place where i see myself. you cannot exclude globalism in todays economy system(s), that simply doesnt work (anymore) while all this regulating sounds not so bad on paper, it doesnt adress problems that come along with the system. - for example wealth is rarely earned but mostly inherited. - people nearly exclusively got rich by exploiting others (e.g. colonialism) ofc you can try to find a rule for all those single problems, but instead you could also put the means of production into worker's hands and stop clinging to the idea of the "good" capitalist, hoping (s)he'll do the right thing. i mean, its pretty obvious where this lead us: pollution, environment, 2 class health systems, overproducing, etc also your regulations cannot hold up with all the fine loop holes capitalism is able to produce time and time again when regulated somewhere. its a bit like coders and anticheat ;)
2020-10-01 18:45
I do not exclude globalism from the proposal I gave you. In fact, as most of my source of income are coming from the stock market, I believe I understand what's could motivate investors. With the rules I gave above, of course it would lower the value of the stocks of your national companies. But this would matter only for short term owner, aka traders speculating about their value. For long term investors, that would mean a massive increase of the motivation of your worker, an edge over other countries to recruit the best profile, leading to an improvement of the companies productivity. It would also imply massive investment in R&D, leading to an increase of the value of the companies. On the long term, those companies would be more stable, more resilient and more productive than others, becoming extremely valuated on the stock market. Sounds like a win win to me, for owners and workers inside capitalism. The regulation I proposed, would limit a lot the disparities between the richer and the poor working class we see today. As it redirect a lot of the wealth created into workers wallet. The other problem you adress are real, I won't deny it. But for exemple, overproduction was even worse in soviet countries than it was in capitalistic one. Same goes for pollution, even today, vietnam is not a champion in the fight against pollution. So, one economical organisation or the other won't solves those issues. Those issues, if we want to fix them before it is too late (and I believe it is already) need 2 things : change in people consommation habits and on a longer term, technological evolution (such as fusion power/asteroid mining/ etc) No matter what we do, if people don't understand they are individually responsible and every time they buy something they create pollution and environment problems then they is no way out. Not until the long term advancement I told about at least. Loop holes exist for 2 reasons : 1 not enough power given to control authorities/not enough risk for cheater 2 no political will to address them Ill take an extreme exemple, I don't want the world to become like China but in China, no one become billionaire unless the political power agreed to. There the authority has enough (too much) power to limit frauds. And those who become billionaire are allowed to (this is too much too) because it serve the nation and/or the corrupted political power agenda. Again, I don't want any country to become as authoritarian as China. In fact I consider Switzerland as the only country democratic enough for my taste. And even them could do way better. It was just to say : no loop holes are not a curse. We could get rid of them if we would
2020-10-01 20:54
as i said, i understand where youre coming from (or rather where you would love to go with this) but its not possible. to break it down to the "absolute" and i know im oversimplyfying as fuck here: capitalism incites rivalry, which means every "man" stands for himself to gain advantages. id rather have no rivalry at all but a society that is focused on the well being of all people in it. less individuum more collective if you so will. also what im really dissapointed in is your comparison to russia and china. these are not communist states, tehy never were and never will be. calling them that is a result of so called anti-communist propaganda during cold war. they never had the power or the means of production in worker's hands but instead were always rules by elitists which defies the very idea of communism (all are equal) itself. so, maybe rethink using that term for these countries. maybe (maaaaybe) at one point there was the idea to really follow marx's logic but it was abandoned nearly right form the start. real communism hasnt been done yet. the idea that capitalism is the right form of system is so ingrained in "us" (western societies) that the sheer thought of lets say "socialising" companies to the benefit of those who work there (and consequentially for all) seems like heresy. (i dont think that you and sanders are thinking the same way btw, but you can call yourself whatever you like. im not "judging" you because of some labels someone give you or you bestow onto yourself but by your words)
2020-10-02 14:03
I don't called Russia or China communist? Can you point that out? But if you want to talk about communism, here we go: I agree with you real communist hasn't been done yet (if ever). Capitalism is not the "right" form, it is the only form we have. I don't believe in communism because it is not achievable under democracy. Because as you said, there is always some bad sheeps, some trying to get advantages other don't have. And so to shut them down, you have to use some sort of fascist move everytime. Just see what Trotsky did as an exemple : executing strikers to not give an image of unhappy workers. So even if you come with the best intention of the world, you are only a human, and human makes mistakes. And even if you makes the less mistakes possible, then your successor might not be the saint you were. That's why, imo, every attempt of communism turned into dictatorship. This being said, I don't believe in communist as a working economical system either since if everyone get equal reward for their work, why people would choose to be janitor (for exemple) willingly? Some way or another you have to force them to do so. Why would you work at night if you could work during day time for exemple, etc? So either you force them to do so, in which case you turn into a dictatorship, either you give them benefit to do so : better rewards for exemple, in which case you get away from a pure equalitarian system. And there is plenty of problem like this one. In the other hand capitalism as you said, use rivalry between people to set an order that address a lot of problem communism couldn't. Yes this order is currently flawed big time. And that's why I pledge to regulate this flawed order as much as possible.
2020-10-02 14:19
i think that youd be surprised how different ppl are, what they like and that they will do all kinds of jobs at all kinds of times if they are payed well for it. but now we have ppl being janitors or working involuntarily nightshifts and getting scraps compared to what others "earn" in seemingly more comfortable jobs. that "ppl wouldnt work if everything were handed to them" argument is from conservative/right-wing people's handbook btw. or if you so want even tho you dont see yourself that way: liberal af ___________________________________________ "The other problem you adress are real, I won't deny it. But for exemple, overproduction was even worse in soviet countries than it was in capitalistic one. Same goes for pollution, even today, vietnam is not a champion in the fight against pollution. So, one economical organisation or the other won't solves those issues." this to me felt like you were contrast communism with capitalism. my bad i took it the wrong way.
2020-10-02 14:43
I never said "ppl wouldnt work if everything were handed to them". As I like talking with you, would you please not speculate about things I never said? In fact I am favoring an universal revenue, and like you I don't think this would create a lack of desire to work. Yes today people do crap job or shift because they are forced to, the system is unfair, we both agree on that. My point was, a communist system wouldn't be perfect either, since those jobs are still needed and so it must address the issue. By doing so, the perfect communist system goes away. Just to say, the system under capitalism is flawed and so it would be under communism as well.
2020-10-02 14:48
you need to do a bit of transfer effort tho... "people wouldnt work blabla" is just a buzzphrase for that whole idea that so called lesser (or how you call them shitty) jobs wouldnt find anyone to work them, etc, so your absolutely in that wheelhouse i was adressing. for starters, why not put out bonuses for those jobs to have an extra incentive? the way jobs are payd nowdays has nothing to do with the value these jobs have for our society. then, i strongly believe if (to circle back to what i said earlier) ppl were living (and therfor also working) more as a collective, with the society in mind and not their own, it would spark and stimulate willingness of altruism. you can already see that in anarcho-syndicate like systems on smaller levels. you say a communist system wouldnt be perfect simply from your capitalist = ideal view. but it would be whole different approach to problems you now only know "capitalist" solutions for, so this "there would be flaws" is just something you think.. however with capitalism we know for sure that it doesnt work. its been proven every day for way too many years on all kinds of fronts. but in one point we agree: of course there will be bloodshed because ppl who are in power now will not hand it over willingly. that doesnt mean there muist be fascist methods in effect. again, youre playing a well-known liberal card by relativating the need for "violence" to change for a better (read equal) world for ALL (which is the keyword here) with that of ppl who use it for reasons that others dont fit in their (always) narrow world view (e.g. sexual orientation, religion, you name it)
2020-10-02 15:06
I agree with you about bonuses for these jobs, I even proposed you this solution above "either you give them benefit to do so : better rewards for exemple, in which case you get away from a pure equalitarian system.". The problem with smaller level system analogy, is current societies are quite big, and cover a very large size of knowledge for everyone to do everything. You can't say "everyone will be one month janitor, then X, then Y, then doctor, then rocket scientist". We reached a point where we need specialisation. Myself, despite believing to be above average intelligent, would be a terrible builder, because I have no knowledge or experience on that subject. And teaching everyone each subject of all work of the whole society would be totally inefficient. That's something you can do with little system, such as little tribes or whatever, but not in our society with thousand of different jobs. Again, to me capitalism is not perfect, far from it. But that's the only thing we have (I mean here, France). From a political standpoint, there is no way you turn the whole country into something else. People are afraid of change and there is economical power that will fight you in every case. So here, unless you turn in a dictatorship (and so become another failed attempt of communism) you can't get away of capitalism. That's not my choice or belief, that's how it is. And so you have to think about what you change within those limits to make the world better. Like you, I would like people to all unite behind a radical change to improve almost everyone lives. But it is not gonna happen. I'm sure you know it already when you watch how many rightist there is just here on hltv.
2020-10-02 15:25
#79
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
> Proposing "regulated capitalism" > Being leftist Pick one.
2020-10-01 18:12
I pick both, and like it or not most leftist thinks like me : Sanders thinks like me, AOC thinks like me, Melenchon thinks like me, Corbyn thinks like me, etc..
2020-10-01 18:14
#83
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
I dont think neither of them thinks like you, maybe Sanders because he came from a country which is fucked up. Imho, then, being a leftist you should considered the idea of a "regulated capitalism" the MINIMUM we can be happy to achieve, but you should demand more.
2020-10-01 18:18
Why that?
2020-10-01 18:20
#88
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
I think you already know the answer
2020-10-01 18:23
If I did, I wouldn't ask.
2020-10-01 18:23
#91
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
It's a sop. It's surrender. That's my answer to your question.
2020-10-01 18:24
As usual, a rightist without any argument. Have a nice day.
2020-10-01 18:25
#95
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
Dont insult, man. I didnt. The arguments were not the problem, but since I expect what kind of answers u could give me, i was simply not interested in starting an argument about that.
2020-10-01 18:27
?? He didn't insulted you, it's a fact that most left-wing ideologies aim for an abolition of capitalism at some point, sooner, or later. Thus, not aiming at dismantling capitalism isn't that leftist, and is just giving up.
2020-10-01 18:46
I don't know any leftist aiming to abolish the capitalism in real life. And this affirmation is imho, baseless. Being a leftist or a rightist is being put on a scale. A scale that varies from one country to another and from one time to another. For exemple, when right and left was created, the rightists were monarchist/absolutist and the leftist were republican/democrat. Today most rightist in the world are not royalist anymore. In the same way, a moderate leftist in the USA would be a rightist/moderate rightist in France. On that regard, you can't claim that Biden, which for the USA is a leftist (a moderate one, yet still a leftist) aime at dismantling capitalism.
2020-10-01 20:30
So you are a RadLib / SocDem ?
2020-10-01 18:32
I don't know what these means.
2020-10-01 18:39
SocDem stands for Social Democrat, since you are French, think like, the PS (correct me if i'm wrong). It usually revolves around strong welfare programs, but it uses a capitalism economic system Mélanchon or Corbyn are more Left-wing than Social Democrats, but Bernie is definitely a progressive SocDem
2020-10-01 18:43
I'm more left wing than the PS and so is Sanders.
2020-10-01 20:30
lmaoo what a lib
2020-10-01 18:28
Quite the opposite in fact
2020-10-01 20:57
no obviously not
2020-10-01 21:05
#135
 | 
Serbia Provizija
you cant put regulation and capitalims in one sentence its oxymoron
2020-10-01 20:51
No it is not. Capitalism can't exist without regulation. Without regulation there is no law, with no law there is no protection of your property, without protection of the property there is no property. Without property there is no capitalism. You are mixing capitalism and liberalism
2020-10-01 20:57
#142
 | 
Serbia Provizija
capitalism is based on free flow of people, goods, services and capital, if there is regulations that flow is not free, thats why we not live in capitalism but insted we live in mix of capitalism and socialism
2020-10-01 21:04
No, that's free market aka liberalism.
2020-10-01 21:04
#147
 | 
Serbia Provizija
ok then my bad
2020-10-01 21:08
no, capitalism is based on the private ownership of the means of production and its operation for profit. capitalism doesnt have to have free markets and free markets can exist outside a capitalist economy
2020-10-01 21:06
#146
 | 
Serbia Provizija
ok, tnx for clarification
2020-10-01 21:07
pol pot best
2020-10-01 16:54
Pol Pot bestest confirmed
2020-10-01 17:07
Stopped reading at both were good
2020-10-01 16:54
#22
 | 
Russia goodjob
"both were good" ok, commie
2020-10-01 16:57
"Ok, commie" Stalin was the greatest leader our country has ever had
2020-10-01 16:57
#26
 | 
Russia goodjob
nice joke lmao what's next? are you gonna tell me we won the war because of Stalin too? and because of commies?
2020-10-01 16:58
Stalin was one of the key people thanks to whom we won the war
2020-10-01 17:00
#45
 | 
Russia goodjob
people were the key reason.. Stalin is one of the main reasons why we lost so many people in that war, far more than any other nation involved
2020-10-01 17:08
The reason was maybe that German'ys plan was the total occupation of the Western Part of the Soviet Union, and the ethnic cleansing of everyone who lived there
2020-10-01 18:35
Kim Jung Un Why? Because he´s the son of Kim Jong-il
2020-10-01 16:57
Not sure if you're trolling or not, but Stalin was a mass murderer on a level unseen before he committed his atrocities. He might well be the worst man to ever have lived on the surface of the Earth (so far). He did forge a battered Russia into an economic superpower, but at the cost of unbelievable suffering and death to hundreds of millions of people, many of them his OWN people. Also he had Trotsky assassinated. And ordered a massive offensive on my country, which we thankfully repelled and managed to retain independence. To say Stalin sucks balls would be an understatement of the century.
2020-10-01 17:02
"at the cost of unbelievable suffering and death to hundreds of millions of people, many of them his OWN people" LMAO Where did you read this bullshit from? Some fake sources like Solzhenitsyn?
2020-10-01 17:03
Dude? How have you not heard of the GULAGs, the Great Famine (caused by his terrible policies) or the Great Purge? How old are you? The extent of his barbarism and thirst for death is taught in elementary schools, though of course in Russia it probably is not. But you can read all about it from Wikipedia for example. I suggest you find other heroes to worship, my man; Stalin was not even human. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes history.howstuffworks.com/historical-fig..
2020-10-01 17:08
He overexaggerated a bit, but still doesn't change the fact that Stalin was a madman
2020-10-01 17:43
#81
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
I hate Stalin cause he is the main reason because of people, today, hates communism and socialism, which instead are very good both in their theoretical principles.
2020-10-01 18:16
They are both pretty shit. They are communists, so that's expected. left-handed btw
2020-10-01 17:08
#84
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
Nt god-fearing boy.
2020-10-01 18:20
#50
 | 
Finland Autisthicc
stalin good XDDD yes if you like a genocide hes pretty good at those
2020-10-01 17:25
Name a single genocide he made
2020-10-01 17:29
#56
 | 
Finland Autisthicc
troll or brainwashed 20 iq dog, either way have a good day.
2020-10-01 17:32
Lmao Typical uneducated Stalin hater with no arguments
2020-10-01 17:32
Holodomor
2020-10-01 17:32
It wasn't a genocide
2020-10-01 17:32
You are spitting on the graves of all those people who died in that genocide by denying it. You have been lied to by your teachers, your government and probably your parents too. But you don't have to be a fkin monster. Not all Russians were even back then. Look into something like Anarcho-communism for more interesting venues, my man. Hero worship goes nowhere, as all people are flawed in the end (though none as shitty as Stalin). I'm also a "leftist" and yet I hate all things soviet.
2020-10-01 17:49
*leftist detected on my hltv ground*
2020-10-01 17:27
lenin >
2020-10-01 17:34
Read up on Stalin and then tell me one good thing he ever did? And no, Russia didn´t defeat Germany thanks to Stalin, but in spite of Stalins incompetence and paranoia. Trotsky > competent Stalin > mass murderer, deportation of millions (to Sibiria Hell)
2020-10-01 17:40
GDP growth 10% per year? Industrialisation? Making USSR a superpower? "Stalin > mass murderer, deportation of million" – here we go once again. How many people did Stalin kill?
2020-10-01 17:44
Can you count to millions? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge Note: The Great Purge is only first part of Stalins crimes, and does not include all the mass deportations, which continued into WW2 The link below adds more numbers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_i.. sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre.. jsis.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content.. bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z86pmnb/revisi.. ... quote from this article: The Communist leadership was purged - 93 of the 139 Central Committee members were put to death. The armed forces were purged - 81 of the 103 generals and admirals were executed. The Communist Party was purged - about a third of its 3 million members were killed. Photographs and history books were changed to eliminate even the memory of people who had been arrested. Ordinary people By the end of the 1930s, the Great Terror had spread to ordinary people - anybody who looked as though they had a will of their own. Some 20 million ordinary Russians were sent to the gulag - the system of labour camps mostly in Siberia - where perhaps half of them died. The Christian Church and the Muslim religion were forbidden. Ethnic groups were persecuted, and Russification - the acceptance of Russian language and customs - was enforced throughout the Soviet Union. People who had annoyed their neighbours were turned in to the NKVD (the secret police) and arrested, never to be seen again.
2020-10-01 20:29
Hard to say that Trotsky was competent, as he never got the heavy-powered status that Stalin got. He proved himself as a charismatic politician, a great military strategist, and a high-status party leader USSR definitely won against Germany thanks the the industrial 5-Year plans who transformed the country from a backwards monarchy were serfdom was still the norm into an industrial behemoth (I'll give you that, the 5-Year plans were not a Stalin-only idea)
2020-10-01 18:28
#99
 | 
Yugoslavia seeeed
He was alive
2020-10-01 18:31
Adolf
2020-10-01 17:53
#71
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
Lenin.
2020-10-01 18:02
Agree
2020-10-01 18:02
#75
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
The Paris Commune was the best expression of socialism btw. Indeed, it was suppressed in blood.
2020-10-01 18:07
Cringe Thiers
2020-10-01 18:22
#90
 | 
Senegal m0rkTFH
Do you prefer Josip Broz?
2020-10-01 18:23
Not a hardcore Titosit, but yeah, i like the guy
2020-10-01 18:29
#137
 | 
Serbia Provizija
that guy was awesome 😎
2020-10-01 20:53
Stalin for sure he shot his own people kinda badass ngl
2020-10-01 18:08
I would say Trotsky, i'm more aligned with his idea of Leninist decentralisation of power, and supporting leftist revolutions abroad, internationalism.
2020-10-01 18:21
I wish he'd got the opportunity to rule the country as well
2020-10-01 18:34
what leftists has to do with the two?
2020-10-01 18:24
Because Stalin and Trotsky are both Left-wing ...?
2020-10-01 18:36
they are communists, left-wing and communism its not the same thing
2020-10-01 18:49
Yes it is ??? Communism is the end-goal of a good portion of left-wing ideologies, from socialism, to anarchism, to everything in-between
2020-10-01 18:51
not its not...the definition of left-wing is unorthodox in their religious or political views in their country, that is, if you are an atheist in a religious country, you are left wing, if you are in favor of civil rights movement in a country that does not have it, you are left wing. People want to give their opinion on politics without knowing the meaning of the terms
2020-10-01 18:59
Left wing means adhering to a Leftist ideology, being leftist isn't just contesting the political system
2020-10-01 19:06
and the leftist ideology does not necessarily mean communist, it changes depending on the country, in the USA Democrats are called leftists because they defend a democratic country, while the country is Republican by law. In France who was against monarchy, was called left-wings.
2020-10-01 19:17
#94
 | 
Yugoslavia seeeed
Trotsky if i had to chose between the two, but overall neither were really great
2020-10-01 18:26
nt putin
2020-10-01 18:36
mao of course
2020-10-01 18:59
Adam smith, friedrich hayek, murray rothbard and ludwig von mises >>>>>>> marx, lenin and trotsky
2020-10-01 19:21
combination of stalin rubin and rodolsky
2020-10-01 19:21
tronald dump
2020-10-01 20:35
Stalin got 7-8 milion people deported into gulags with about one million deaths. Thats comparable to Hitlers concentration camps. But yeah sure, Stalin was great.
2020-10-01 20:51
#139
 | 
Brazil wololo10
God save general Stalin
2020-10-01 20:55
Project X
2.69
Heretics
1.37
New England Whalers
1.22
Rebirth
4.30
Vireo.pro
2.93
Rebirth
1.38
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.